The majority supported passing the bill in the House of Representatives (in parliamentary jargon, they voted to give the bill a third reading). The bill will now go to the Senate to see if the senators agree with the members of parliament (MPs) and also want to pass the bill. If they do, the bill will become law.

Carbon Farming Initiative

The Carbon Farming Initiative lets farmers and land managers earn carbon credits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and storing carbon in vegetation and soils by changing their agricultural and land management practices.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time.(Read about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority agree with the main idea of the bill.

The Carbon Farming Initiative was introduced by the previous Labor Government and is a voluntary carbon offsets scheme that currently "allows farmers and land managers to earn carbon credits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (such as nitrous oxide and methane) and storing carbon in vegetation and soils through changes to agricultural and land management practices (also known as carbon farming)".

The Coalition Government supports the Carbon Farming Initiative but Minister for Environment Greg Hunt has said that it "can be better, stronger, simpler and more streamlined" (see here), which is what this bill aims to do with its changes to the approvals process and the introduction of a 25-year-long option for carbon sequestration projects (currently all projects must run for a period of 100 years).

Carbon Farming Initiative

The Carbon Farming Initiative lets farmers and land managers earn carbon credits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and storing carbon in vegetation and soils by changing their agricultural and land management practices.

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple
phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case
Andrew Robb
was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other
than that they have "never voted" on this policy.